Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful transparency by specifying the row contents (code, severity, evidence URL, fix guidance) and the 'open findings' filtering behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences lead with the core action and scope, then add concrete examples and row-level expectations. Every sentence contributes value with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, result contents, and safe behavior. The only real gap is the ambiguous relationship between 'open findings' and the status parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains what findings look like, not the semantics of siteId or status. The 'open' phrasing hints at a default filter but does not clarify the status enum or how to request other statuses.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: list crawl findings for a site, with concrete examples (missing descriptions, blocked AI crawlers, missing llms.txt). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sites and list_approved_changes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Describes the tool as retrieving open crawl findings for a site, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the list-based siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.